MORE THAN 3000 BABIES PER YEAR EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS HAVE BEEN SNATCHED BY SS AND PUT INTO CARE PRIOR TO ADOPTION. A BURGLAR FACING SIX MONTHS PRISON CAN DEMAND A HEARING BY JURY. BUT A MOTHER FACED WITH THE LOSS OF HER BABY FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE CANNOT.

Here at last is PROOF that many of those concerned in "child protection" are receiving vast sums of money.

State child snatchers: As social workers hand back a child they falsely claim was abused, an investigation exposes one of the great scandals of our age

By Christopher Booker Daily Mail, 20th August 2011

Daily Mail readers will have been horrified yesterday to read the story of the South Gloucestershire couple whose two young children were removed from them because social workers thought their son’s bone fractures must have been caused by physical abuse.

Only after a nightmarish 18-month ordeal, which drove the couple apart, were they finally able to produce medical evidence to indicate that the boy’s injuries were caused naturally, by brittle bone disease.

The council dropped the case, and Amy Garland and her children are now happily reunited.

When I spoke to her last night she told me how lucky she’d been to be put in touch with a medical expert who established the truth.

I listened to her story with particular interest because it is only one more example in a very dark area of our national life I have long been investigating, and which I have come to see as one of the greatest scandals unfolding in Britain today — as shocking as anything I have come across in all my five decades as a journalist.

In the past two years, since the furore over Baby P, the number of children being taken away from their parents by social workers has soared by almost 50 per cent to an all-time record level of nearly 10,000 a year.

And having followed scores of such cases in detail, it is abundantly clear to me that in far too many of them there is absolutely no reason why the families should be torn apart in this way.

Forcibly separating happy, well-cared for children from loving, responsible parents creates a tragedy which will last for the rest of the lives of all those involved — even if they are eventually reunited. The emotional agony if the children are permanently removed hardly bears thinking about.

Of course there is no objection to social workers removing children from parents who have genuinely abused them. As we know from many notorious examples, social workers have failed to take into care children who died as a result.

But a key reason for the rise in the number of children now being seized from their parents is that, precisely to avoid such scandals in the wake of the Baby P case, social workers have gone to the opposite extreme, becoming trigger-happy, snatching children for no good reason.

Since Baby P, social workers have gone to the other extreme, becoming trigger-happy and snatching children for no good reason . What is most shocking about this is that the families then find themselves in the grip of a system which seems horribly rigged against them. Too often these cases will begin on the flimsiest of grounds, as when the social workers are tipped off by a malicious neighbour or an over-zealous teacher.

One mother I know, who holds down a responsible job, lost her two children when her only mistake was to tap her daughter’s arm with a roll of clingfilm. The next day this was twisted by a foolish teacher into a charge that the girl had been ‘hit with an implement’, and the council paid a psychiatrist £14,000 for a 235-page report arguing that the mother suffered from ‘a borderline personality disorder’, one of the vague, unprovable claims they love to use.

Another lost her three children after she had tripped up on a charity walk, pulling the daughter holding her hand to the ground. When a health visitor reported the bruises the child suffered as a result to social workers, without asking how these had arisen, they sent the mother to one psychiatrist after another until they found one prepared to say she had a ‘borderline personality disorder’.

One of the sanest and brightest mothers I have come across had her baby removed after the woman had accidentally fallen from a window, because the social workers alleged that she had tried to commit suicide.

They rang to tell her they were taking her baby while she lay temporarily paralysed in hospital.

On such dubious grounds, the social workers may arrive to snatch children from their beds, all too often accompanied by a gang of four or more policemen, who seem only too willing to comply with any demands the social workers make.

One mother was breastfeeding her three-hour-old baby on a hospital bed when two social workers and four policemen burst into the room to take the child forcibly from her arms, after a series of false allegations were made against her.

The parents in such cases often find themselves treated like criminals, held for hours in police cells before being released without charge. But worse is to come when they arrive in a family court, where all the normal rules of British justice seem to have been reversed.

The social workers can produce hearsay evidence which may be a tissue of lies, but which the parents are not allowed to question, or submit damning documents to the judge which the parents are not even allowed to read.

If they are represented by solicitors, in most cases forced on them by the council, they often find that their lawyers refuse to oppose the council’s application for a care order — which allows the children to be removed for a longer period — and accept every allegation the council makes.

The system hides itself away behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy Most family judges are as much part of this broken system as the social workers themselves — one rare exception being the senior family judge who last year castigated the behaviour of Devon social workers as ‘more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West of England’.

Meanwhile the children, generally bemused and distraught at what is happening to them, are placed with foster carers, who receive on average £400 a week or £20,000 a year for each child from the state.

The biological parents and children may be allowed to meet for only a few hours a week of rigorously ‘supervised contact’, in a grim council ‘contact centre’.

Any expression of affection or mention of the court case is strictly forbidden and can be punished by suspension of the contact, possibly permanently. It may sound hard to believe, but I know of cases where children have been groomed by the social workers and their foster carers to believe that their parents no longer love or want them. In several cases I have followed, it is clear that children in foster care are being maltreated or even sexually abused.

Finally, this travesty of justice may wind to its conclusion when, after anything up to two years, a judge agrees that a child can be sent for adoption — although in recent years our adoption rate has markedly fallen, leaving ever more thousands of these children as fodder for a ‘fostering industry’ which is now costing taxpayers more than £3 billion a year.

Obviously there are happier exceptions to this dreadful picture. Some children are rightly saved by social workers from genuine abuse, and there are many good and caring foster homes. But in far too many cases, the other, more tragic scenario has become the norm.

So, if things have gone so terribly wrong with our child protection system, why has this happened — and why have we not heard more about it? It is difficult for outsiders to realise just how corrupted it has become until they experience it at first hand — because the entire system has managed to hide itself away behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy.

It is time this astonishing national scandal was recognised for what it is Supposedly designed to ‘protect the interests of the children’ by ensuring that they cannot be identified, this secrecy had been used by the system to conceal its workings from public view, by threatening parents with prison for talking about their case to outsiders, and even journalists like me for trying to report what goes on.

It is this cloak of secrecy which more than anything has allowed the system to go so far off the rails. Too many social workers are in the grip of a self-righteous, politically correct ideology which drives them to abuse the power the Government has given them over other people’s lives, in the conviction that they are doing good in the world.

The secrecy which surrounds the way they wield that power means they are hardly ever called to account.

Nothing did more to distort the system in this way than Tony Blair’s personal crusade a few years back to drive up the number of adoptions by setting councils targets for the number of children they place with new families. They were given huge cash incentives to fulfil their quotas thanks to a policy which, though now technically abandoned, has left a terrible legacy in convincing both social workers and the courts that one of their prime duties is to seize children from their parents, even when there is no good reason for it.

It is time this astonishing national scandal was recognised for what it is, and for the trail of horrors it is perpetrating to be dragged into the light.

Secret courts that steal our children

1:-The fact is that parents who have committed no crime are losing their children to forced adoption!

2:-Experts who depend on court appearances for a living, nearly always agree with the local authority.They make predictions that parents just might abuse their children (including newborn babies) in the future ,so these parents lose their children to permanent fostercare or adoption,not for something they have done but for something they might (or might not) do!

3:-Over 1000 UK children /month are taken into care ,Fosterers are paid an average £400/week per child (birth mothers get around £20/week),and a foster agency founded by social workers getting around £1500/week per child was recently sold for £130million !A real money driven industry !!

4:-Parents whose children have been taken are gagged and threatened with prison if they protest publicly;At contact parents are gagged again and forbidden to get emotional,to speak any foreign language,or to discuss the case with their children otherwise contact will be stopped.

5:-More children are taken for emotional abuse than physical and sexual abuse added together.Despite "baby P" the number taken for physical abuse is steadily falling as a percentage of the total number of children taken.

6:-What are the solutions? (a)Impose criminal rules of evidence in family courts so children cannot be taken unless parents are proved to have committed a crime affecting their children. Also parents would be free to obtain a second opinion from an expert of their own choosing.

(b)Abolish all gagging of parents leaving them free to protest openly if their children are taken, and also to say what they like to them at contact without censorship ! Two very simple changes, two very obvious solutions.,but will anyone impose them and derail the money train?

The 'experts' who break up families:The terrifying story of the prospective MP branded an unfit mother by experts who'd never met her - a nightmare shared by many other families

A little over a year ago, Lucy Allan led what most people would regard as an eminently respectable life. The middle-class mother, a Tory councillor, was happily married to her stockbroker husband, Robin, and doted on their ten-year-old son, who loved going to school and was a passionate cricketer. Indeed, such was Mrs Allan’s standing in the community that this accountant and former investment banker was on David Cameron’s A-list of potential MPs and a prospective Conservative candidate at the last election.

She devoted her spare time to her council duties. Twice a month, she sat on the local fostering panel, which oversaw the removal of children from their parents and placed them with new families. It was heart-rending work, as she recalls. ‘At each fostering meeting we were presented with horrifying cases of abusive parents, almost always depicted as “substance abusers”, mentally unstable or “unable to put the needs of their children over their own needs”.

‘Often, this portrayal was supported by an expert report from a psychiatrist, psychologist or medical doctor,’ says Lucy.

‘It never occured to me, or any member of the panel, that the information we were presented with might be a distorted, twisted fiction — or that the reports were anything other than independent.’

Now, her view has changed. She suspects that many of the damning reports were written by experts who had never met the families in question, to suit the wishes of social workers under pressure from the Government to increase the number of children adopted. As a result of this process, more and more children are being taken into state foster care.

So why has her faith in the system she once facilitated been shattered? Because, thanks to a bewildering chain of events, this eloquent, educated woman found herself under attack from social workers and fighting to stop her own son being taken into care.

Hers is a Kafkaesque story involving family experts who passed judgment on her fitness as a mother without, in some cases, even meeting her.

Lucy’s story is particularly disturbing in the light of a report released this month which found that decisions about the futures of thousands of children are being based on flawed evidence from well-paid ‘experts’, some of whom are unqualified and, time and again, never meet the families concerned. The damning study by Professor Jane Ireland, a forensic psychologist, examined more than 127 expert witness reports used in family court cases in three areas of England. She found that 90 per cent were produced by clinicians who no longer practise, but instead earn their living entirely as ‘professional expert witnesses’ paid for by council social work departments. Sixty-five per cent of the reports were poorly or very poorly carried out.

This has led to accusations from MPs, lawyers and families that many of the experts are on a gravy train — ‘hired guns’ paid to write precisely what social workers want to read. This month the Mail reported how just such an accusation has been levelled against one leading psychiatrist, Dr George Hibbert — who faces allegations that he deliberately misdiagnosed parents as having mental disorders, which led to them having their children taken by social services.

John Hemming, a Lib Dem MP who is calling for a national inquiry into the use of expert testimonies in family court hearings, says this dubious system has resulted in families being torn apart and hundreds of children being wrongly taken for adoption from innocent parents.

It is a scenario Lucy Allan feared could happen with her own son. Her nightmare began last March when, aged 46, and having begun to feel depressed for no apparent reason, she decided to go to see a doctor.

‘I am close to my son, so I was worried that he knew I was feeling sad. I went to my local GP surgery expecting to be given a course of anti-depressants and then feel better,’ she recalls.

She was seen by a young female locum, who listened to what Lucy had to say, and then told her she wanted to refer her to social services to ‘see if the family needed support’. The locum turned to Dr Peter Green, a consultant forensic physician and head of child safeguarding in Wandsworth, South London, where Lucy lives. A flamboyant figure with flowing grey hair and a penchant for bow ties, he has written thousands of reports for the family courts. According to documents seen by the Allan family, Dr Green told the locum his view was that Lucy was ‘very self-centred’ — this despite the fact he had never set eyes on Lucy or spoken to her. (When she later complained about the conclusions he had drawn without even having seen her, the doctor is alleged to have told her he had relied on a ‘gut feel’).

To Lucy’s horror, following Dr Green’s assessment, the locum informed social services that Lucy’s son was at significant risk of harm from his mother. Thus it was that a woman whose job it had been to make decisions on the fostering panel about which children should be removed from their families suddenly found herself under the most intense scrutiny.

‘Instead of reading reports on another mother’s “emotionally abused” child or her “chaotic” home life, I was reading the same accusations in reports about me and my family,’ she says. Social services insisted they interview her son, but as the inquiry unfolded, the evidence from his teachers suggested he was happy and thriving. An independent report from an NHS psychiatrist also said Lucy was ‘no risk to anyone, including her son’.

But social services hired their own psychiatrist from the Priory Hospital in Roehampton, south-west London — at taxpayers’ expense naturally

Without meeting Lucy or her son, and based only on information provided by social services, the private psychiatrist stated in an ‘expert’ report that there was an ‘urgent need’ for the assessment and treatment of Lucy.The psychiatrist added that there was ‘no way’ her depression would not have a ‘significant impact on her parenting’.As the investigation dragged on, Lucy underwent a series of interviews by social services and by experts paid by them to examine her and her family. Many of their subsequent reports, says Lucy, were inaccurate, biased and took her family’s words out of context.For example, her son had mentioned that when he got off the school bus, he always asked Lucy how she was, but this was described in one report as: ‘Her son demonstrates inappropriate anxiety for the wellbeing of his mother on a daily basis.’

When Lucy admitted taking sleeping pills for insomnia and diazepam for anxiety, another report on her said such ‘drug abuse would make her barely conscious on a daily basis’. Her confession of sharing a bottle of wine with husband Robin most nights was written up as ‘alcohol abuse’, and the risk of Lucy harming her son was deemed to be ‘substantiated’. All this begs the question of how often such judgments are passed down by ‘experts’ and social workers on those less well equipped than Lucy to defend themselves.

She has spent the past year trying to clear her name, paid out £10,000 on legal fees and has had to pull herself off the A-list of David Cameron’s potential Tory candidates, quit as a school governor, and, of course, resign from the fostering panel. ‘I am now ineligible for the Criminal Record Bureau check required for working with children or young people,’ she says sadly. Her son’s social services records state that she was once considered a ‘risk’ to him, and it will remain on his file till he is 18. Finally, at Christmas, the council’s social services said officially no action was required concerning Lucy. She is trying to rebuild her life with the help of husband Robin — who, incredibly, was never interviewed by social services — but still fears she could come under scrutiny again.

‘The system is designed to silence people,’ she says. ‘I have been prescribed anti-depressants and I am better. But at the back of my mind is the fear that if I complain too loudly about the child protection system they will be back at my door.’

No doubt she would agree with Nigel Priestley, a lawyer involved in family law, who said recently: ‘Just about the most draconian act the state can carry out is to remove a family’s child. What is at stake is the loss of their children, and on the basis of a report which might, or might not be, questionable.’

Those who write these reports — often psychologists or psychiatrists, but also medical doctors and consultants — do not face the glare of public scrutiny precisely because of the secrecy of the family court system. Lucy can describe her ordeal only because her case never got as far as those closed courts — no parent who appears at one of these hearings, which operate in every town and city in the land, is allowed to speak to anyone later about what has happened there, even to their own MP.

Every year, 200 mothers or fathers are jailed for ‘contempt of court’ for breaking this silence — while the same family courts request the removal of 225 children each week, 97 per cent of whom are never returned to their families. Now, there are demands for an American-style ‘class’ legal action against the Government by parents who have had dubious or even bogus reports written about them. Paul Grant, a legal adviser at Bernard Chill & Axtell Solicitors in Southampton, says devastated parents have contacted him after his firm took on the case of a mother, known only as Miss A, who claims she was misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder by psychiatrist Dr George Hibbert because social workers wanted her baby adopted.

Now, Hibbert could be struck off by the General Medical Council, which is investigating extraordinary suggestions that he deliberately misdiagnosed ‘caring’ mothers as having ‘personality disorders’ in order to help social workers take away children. When he was confronted with the allegation about Miss A, Hibbert offered to surrender his licence to practise as a doctor. This week, his spokesman said he is ‘unable to comment due to his professional duty of confidentiality’. But I have learned that Porsche-driving Dr Hibbert amassed up to half-a-million pounds a year from his work as an expert witness, and from his reports on parents and children for social services departments.

Accounts for his company, Assessment in Care Ltd, show that profits soared from £23,000 in 2001 to a peak of £468,000 in 2007. It is now worth £2.7million, according to Companies’ House records. Paul Grant says that Miss A’s distressing case ‘may be the tip of a very large iceberg’. He adds: ‘We contend that when a practising clinician becomes a professional expert witness with a private company, there is no registration process, and no machinery to vet what they do.

‘By failing to put in a regulatory framework, we would argue that the state is failing to protect families under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which says everyone has the right to a private and family life.’As Dr Hibbert’s professional conduct comes under scrutiny, it is emerging that he is not the only one whose actions are being questioned. The Mail has been contacted by scores of parents who believe they have been mistreated on the word of these ‘experts’. We have been told by lawyers about clinicians charging £1,800 a day to appear at family courts, on top of the thousands of pounds a time they receive for writing the reports, which often contain lies, ambiguities and insinuations.One mother said she had her children taken away because an ‘expert’ said she ‘liked shopping’; another was criticised as mentally unfit for ‘burning the toast’, and lost her child, too.

In another case, an expert was paid handsomely to write a report based on the observations of a social worker who said a five-year-old girl was ‘monosyllabic’. Yet we are told a secret tape recording of the social worker’s interview showed the child chatting away about school, her family and her home. The little girl has since been removed from her mother.

We have also been told about a gregarious 47-year-old business adviser in the north of England who had to fight to keep her five-year-old daughter after being labelled a ‘totally isolated schizoid’ by a psychologist, who we understand is trained only to treat children, and should never have been involved in the analysis of adult behaviour. The psychologist in question (who writes up to 100 expert reports a year) charged £6,000 for his written opinion on the mother, her husband and child. Yet the mother says she was given no chance to deny the ‘schizoid’ report — and kept her girl by the skin of her teeth only after the child’s nanny vouched for her parenting skills.

In another extraordinary case, after a woman was found by a psychologist to be a ‘competent mother’, the social workers are said to have insisted on commissioning a second expert’s report. It agreed with the first. They then commissioned a third, which finally found that the mother had a ‘borderline personality disorder’. All three of her children were taken away for adoption.

So how have such apparent travesties been allowed to go on virtually unchecked in child protection?

No other country in Western Europe removes so many children from their parents. The numbers taken into care — the first step towards adoption — have doubled in a decade to more than 10,000 a year. The last Labour government set adoption targets and rewarded local councils with hundreds of thousands of pounds if they reached them. The targets have been scrapped after protests from MPs and lawyers, but the dangerous legacy persists. Social workers now get praise and promotion if they raise adoption numbers. David Cameron is also demanding more adoptions — and that they are fast-tracked.

Since the case of 17-month-old Baby P, more youngsters than ever before in British history are being removed from families every week. Many say this is a knee-jerk reaction, which is probably true. But it’s not the whole story.

It is the 1989 Children Act — which introduced a blanket secrecy in the family courts — that is the real culprit. It encouraged a lack of public scrutiny in the child protection system and what MP John Hemming calls the ‘twaddle and psychobabble’ peddled there, which has caused dreadful miscarriages of justice. Ian Joseph, who has written a book on forced adoption, told me this week: ‘It’s time the criminal rules of justice applied in the family courts. We need parents to be considered innocent until proven guilty and also be free to talk about what is happening in those courts without being thrown into jail.’ Until that happens, hundreds more children may be seized from their families on the word of experts — many of whom are either not qualified or are receiving huge sums of money to play God.

I own a Children's Day Nursery. I work closely with Social Services. I can tell you that Social Services have a target number of children that they have to remove every year. It is because of Ofsted directives. I can tell you about decent families who have been decimated by Social Services. I am completely disillusioned by it all.

____________________This message is confidential and the information must not be used, disclosed, or copied to any other person who is not entitled to receive it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender and then delete it.

Once again the police provide the muscle for social workers to seize children, says Christopher Booker.

Eleven days ago a Kent mother noticed a small mark on her five-year-old son’s ankle. He couldn’t say what had caused it. She dabbed on some antiseptic cream and thought no more about it. Two days later his school noticed the mark and contacted social services. The mother was summoned to hospital and told to sign a form allowing her two children to be kept in care by social workers until she had been interviewed by the police. She was driven 15 miles to Folkestone police station where she was interviewed and held in a cell until midnight. The police then confiscated her BlackBerry, saying it was needed as evidence, and told her she would have to walk home.Terrified and crying, she walked 15 miles in the dark, arriving home as dawn was breaking, She then discovered that at 9.45 the previous evening, three police cars had arrived at the house with sirens blaring. Four policemen and a social worker had woken her seven-year-old daughter to remove her, sobbing, in her nightclothes.

Last week the parents were told by social workers that they would face a care order on the children, whom they were allowed to see briefly on condition that they did not discuss why the children had been taken from home. The police promised the mother’s solicitor that they would return her BlackBerry, worth over £200. But they then told her there was no record of it on their system.

I emailed Kent police twice last week to ask whether they could confirm or deny the details of this story, but have had no reply.In my item last week headed “Why are the police providing muscle for forced adoptions?”, I described how a south London mother was removed to a psychiatric hospital with the aid of six policemen and three social workers, in order to hand her two children to their estranged father. After the two girls tried three times to escape, and a tribunal found there was no reason for their mother to be detained, the family was last week happily reunited.

But once again I must ask why the police support social workers in this astonishingly heavy-handed way, when too often, it seems, there is no good reason to snatch children from their homes in the first place.

'I was stolen from my mother': The deeply disturbing truth about forced adoption

Winona was told her mother didn't love her - and was handed to another family. Nine years later, they were reunited via Facebook. But forced adoption is happening on a scandalously regular basis.

On a sunny station ­platform in a pretty Cornish town this summer, holidaymakers may have witnessed a touching, but at first glance unremarkable, scene.

A very unusual emotional reunion had just taken place. For Tracey Lucas, a 38-year-old mother from Truro, had just kissed her 16-year-old daughter Winona for the first time in nine years.What took place on that station platform was a scene that the State had worked very hard for years to ensure didn’t happen. In fact, there is still a question mark over whether Tracey could face prosecution, even prison, for what happened that day

For nine years previously, Winona and her ­little sister, now 12, were taken from their mother and adopted by another family, given new names and told to forget their natural mother. All contact between them was prevented.Yet in a story that raises profound questions both about British social services and the power of the internet to challenge their secretive workings, Winona traced her birth mother through the Facebook social networking site and the pair are now determined never again to be parted.

Tracey, Winona and her sister were subjects of a forced adoption, which critics — including family solicitors, MPs and wronged families — say are happening on a scandalously regular basis, on the ­flimsiest of evidence, in order to meet government targets to raise the number of adoptions by 50 per cent.

There have been cases cited of babies taken from women considered too young or not clever enough to look after them. One boy was removed on the grounds that his mother might shout at him in the future.In Tracey’s case, her children were sent for adoption because they were deemed ‘at risk of emotional abuse’.

No one can really know the truth, and doubtless social services would argue they acted in good faith and in the ­children’s best interests, but Tracey is adamant she never abused, neglected nor abandoned them.Yet because she was a young single mother, who by her own admission sometimes struggled to cope, she was forced to surrender the most precious things she had. Worse, she says the children believed that she had simply stopped loving them.

‘For years the girls believed I was a bad mother, a horrible person who didn’t love them, while I was told the girls didn’t want to see me and were ­settled into a new life with new parents they loved. All lies,’ says Tracey.

‘The birthday and Christmas cards I wrote were never passed on. The letters Winona wrote to me never reached me. That’s real emotional abuse.’

When Winona was born 18 months later, Cornwall Social Services were a frequent ­presence in their lives.‘We didn’t do drugs and my partner was never violent towards me or the children. Money was tight, but we were doing our best. We loved our little family.’

But they felt persecuted. ‘They were constantly putting us down, accusing us of being bad parents,’ says Tracey.‘I remember one social worker telling me to take the children to a bird ­sanctuary nearby, as that was what “good” parents did. I wanted to shout that I already had plans that day and what business was it of theirs? But I couldn’t win any argument.’

‘I did everything they asked of me: assessments, IQ tests, drug tests, a spell in a mother-and-baby unit (a specialist home for mothers and young children where both can be monitored). Nothing worked.’

In doing so, Cornwall Social Services had taken a step towards fulfilling former PM Tony Blair’s target, announced by New Labour in 2000, to raise the number of UK ­adoptions annually by 50 per cent

Pondering her own future, Winona says: ‘I used to want to work in ­childcare, but I’m not so sure now. One thing’s for certain, though, I won’t be a social worker. I have seen what they can do.’

There could have been few more bizarre meetings anywhere in Britain last week than that between a married mother and the social workers who had taken her six young children to place them unhappily in foster care. The officials, of a council I cannot name, are fixated with the idea that this respectable Christian is a "sex worker", whose children all have different fathers and who is engaged in "child trafficking".

They appear to have no evidence for these charges other than the hearsay surmising of a single "witness". I gather that the social workers had reluctantly agreed to commission DNA testing of parents and children, to establish whether they were all from the same father. But even now, I am told, the social workers are refusing to disclose the test results.

The mother, accompanied to this surreal interrogation by a nun who had known her for years, insisted that she had only slept with one man in her life, her husband, the father of her children. She went on to ask one of the social workers how many men she had slept with. The reply was that this was a private matter.

Perhaps we are not very far here from those extraordinary cases some 20 years ago when children were torn away from their families wholesale because social workers had concocted a fantasy that they were being abused in weird satanic rituals (a story I told in my book Scared To Death).It is vitally important that when this case again comes before the courts, the judge should put the council's supposed evidence to very careful test.

I look forward to being able to report in due course that this horrible farce has been brought to an end and that the distraught parents have been reunited with their children.

A serving Borough Councillor who is prepared to raise her own grandchildren, being denied , so the state can generate money from Forced Adoption

ivanataylor made this Freedom of Information request to Kent County Council

The request was refused by Kent County Council.

Dear Sir or Madam,

A friend of mine, who is a serving Borough Councillor, is seeminglyabout to lose four granddaughters, all under the age of six yearsto Forced adoptions, in secret Family Court.

I have been a victim myself to this corrupt system, which tearsgood families apart, to meet adoption quotas and gain governmentgrant funding. Its all about money generation for governmentagencies rather than " Best Interest of The Child".

Birth Families should always be first considered before childrenare removed from their birth families. Clearly Sheeena Williamswishes to raise her own granddaughters and has raised her ownchildren , with no problems. Why is she being totally overlooked asan alternative to forced adoption?

Under freedom of information please let me have the followinginformation.

What are you going to do about the above NOW? Not after this familyhas been destroyed and broken. A good healthy family, I must add.

How many children have been placed for forced adoption, withoutconsideration of extended birth families? Is this the normalpractice of Kent County Council, to break up healthy family ties?

How many of Kent County Council forced adoption cases have beenoverseen by Judge Polden? Does this Judge always exclude placementswith birth families and opt instead to steal peoples children forCash Incentives?

I find the situation to be quite bizare, and totally flawed.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Yvonne Stewart-Taylor Retired Town Councillor for Windermere TownWard. Served for seventeen years.

ivanataylor left an annotation (20 September 2009)

I have sent this letter to all UK MP's

Dear MP.

Secret UK Family Courts/ Stealing children form innocent families for financial incentives for Forced Adoptions.

Between Jan 2003 and September 2003 our family were falsely accused of child abuse. At the time I was an elected member of the Windermere Town Council and had served on the Council for over 15 years. We were kept in the Family Court system for exactly eight months, to the day! I was forced to resign and lost my careers as a direct result. The cost to the Tax Payer, cerca 50K Cumbria County Council. Has not answered or dealt with the very serious issues of discrimination surrounding our case, or the huge detrimental affect that this has caused, long term ,to our family.

We are not criminals and never have been charged or prosecuted with any offense. I served my community in various capacities for many years in the voluntary and public sectors. We have not recovered from the abuse ,we suffered as a family, at the hands of government authorities, who were heavy handed and punitive in the way they dealt with us and treated us. CAFCASS, POLICE, SOCIAL SERVICES and Family Law Franchise Solicitors are all guilty of abusing our family and more importantly an extremely sick and vulnerable infant. Who was denied a correct diagnosis or treatment by officials, consultants and doctors in the NHS Trust Lancaster.

A great injustice occurred to us, and I have been lobbying, campaigning and Complaining for over 6 years. I have good reason to believe the system is corrupt and is following underhanded agendas of human trafficking and Forced Adoptions. MP,s and Ministers as well as The House of Lords are all well aware of the above and similarly to the government,corrupt authorities have done nothing to address my grave concerns about the Child Protection system. It has recently come to my attention, that there are other Elected Representatives across the Country who are also suffering the same injustice, in Corrupt Family Courts at the hands of Judges who remove children from birth families.

To meet adoption targets and draw down funding. This is quite unacceptable and a total violation of Human Rights and The Rights of the Children. You cannot deal with mistakes in the past or project how things will be in the future. I accept this. However you can deal with what is happening RIGHT NOW. Sheena Williams Elected and Serving Borough Councilor in Kent is, as I speak, faced with losing four granddaughters, all under six, to Forced adoption. For no good reason, as Sheena and her husband wish to take care of their own grand daughters. They should certainly be considered prior to any adoption.

Yet Judge Polden has threatened the Childrens Mother, bullied her. Intimidation of a party to Court. He is adamant that Sheena cannot be represented in court, while decisions are made about her own families future. I know too well how that feels. How much it hurts to see your family torn apart. When I first started to Lobby and raise awareness, my motivation was ,and still is, that this must STOP NOW. No other person should go through what we did. Six years on, and not one of you can say, "I did not know about this"!!

My friend Sheena is suffering the same abuse and corrupt system. NOTHING has CHANGED in SIX YEARS!!! My question is this: What are you ALL going to do to STOP THIS NOW and end Forced Adoptions and Human Rights Violations in OUR COUNTRY NOW?? Not in the future, NOW.?? You know about this case, as I and Sheena have brought it to your attention. You MUST ACT NOW to PREVENT ANOTHER MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. I wonder how perspective Local and National Government electives will feel, when this news goes public, that even Elected members are not safe from Government Corruption. NO ONE IS SAFE. NO FAMILY IS SAFE, and YOU AND YOUR FAMILY MIGHT BE THEIR NEXT VICTIMS. DO SOMETHING NOW. Anything less will be a failure.

Brian Gerrish (UK Column), Robert Green (Hollie Greig), Ian Josephs ('Forced Adoption'), Jack Frost (Gulag of the Family Courts), Kevin Annette (Canadian Indian Holocaust)) talk at Child Snatching by the State conference (10th April 2010) in Stafford. This is a summarised ten minute rush version

____________________Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

Why do Common Purpose and the Tavistock always seem to pop up around children?

Bore Place in Kent.We work closely with schools, social services, mental health services, YOS, families and networks supporting young people attending Grow2Grow. Grow2Grow is managed by a Consultant Clinical Psychologist with 20 years' experience working with people with mental health problems in the NHS and in fostering and adoption services.

The team includes an Occupational Therapist Gardener and Horticultural Therapist with extensive experience with young people. We also have trainees and volunteers from clinical training courses such as Salomons Clinical Psychology Training and from courses at the Tavistock & Portman NHS Foundation Trust.

____________________This message is confidential and the information must not be used, disclosed, or copied to any other person who is not entitled to receive it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender and then delete it.

@whmon wrote:I own a Children's Day Nursery. I work closely with Social Services. I can tell you that Social Services have a target number of children that they have to remove every year. It is because of Ofsted directives. I can tell you about decent families who have been decimated by Social Services. I am completely disillusioned by it all.

I can tell you whmon that I only have to HEAR the words 'Social Services' and I became insanely angry. You are correct they have target numbers; officially 'adoption targets' were scrapped but in practice they exist. YES SS (good initials for that bunch) DO decimate families. Mine is such a family. My children were never taken - but during the process of building up to that SS made us homeless 3 times, and left us with nearly £3,00 debt (that's a long story). I KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, that had my middle son not got a diagnosis of autism they would have taken them. The whole crux of why they were bothering us was his behaviour, which meant he was 'neglected'. They paid for him to go to a private nursery who ALSO said he showed classic autism signs. SS STILL carried on with 'child protection' meetings. When the paediatrician diagnosed autism (severest case he'd seen in years - his words "I can't BELIEVE they doubted you!"), we announced this at th next meeting. Jaws dropped to the floor and the 'case' was hastily dropped. This all started from a malicious call from a mad crackhead neighbour who thought I'd wronged her somehow. The SW's who visited first said "Well, this is obviously a malicious call" - so I thought everything fine BUT began nearly 2 years of hell. They saw two shiny bright little boys with a mum who was fine - IDEAL adoption material!SS do not want - I'll repeat - SS DO NOT WANT ABUSED CHILDREN FROM ABUSIVE HOMES - very hard to place for adoption!

The trouble is, even when a case is closed, when your names are in that system they will jump on you again. You live in fear of the brown envelope.

Oh dear jd you have picked a subject I could rant about, and could tell you stories to make your hair curl.And thank you for 'forcedadoption' not read the link but presume its the same (Ian Josephs - fantastic man)

Here's a link as to why 'Child Protection' policy does NOT work, indeed has the opposite effect.

Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

Thank you for posting those links Rainbow Fairy. The author talks a lot of sense about this very disturbing issue.

____________________This message is confidential and the information must not be used, disclosed, or copied to any other person who is not entitled to receive it. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender and then delete it.

I'm really sorry RF to read what you have personally been through. I can understand how angry you feel with the words SS. They are the gastapo, evil nasty who are stealing our children in secret courts, splitting up the family, sending parents to prison for the crime of 'speaking' and trying to protect their children, creating unhappy children. I bet you get a longer sentence for 'speaking' in trying to be with your child that the state has stolen from you, than being a celeb child rapist!!!!....This is anything but the welfare of children & familes, its the total opposite!

DO PEOPLE REALISE YET THE REAL COUNTRY WE LIVE IN...AND WHO OUR ELITE POWERS WE ELECT TO SERVE OUR INTERESTS REALLY ARE!!

WHAT COUNTRY IS THIS THAT THE ONES IN POWER "STEAL" YOUR KIDS...THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY TRANSPARENT FREE SOCIETY...THIS IS A TYRANNY

The financial gain is only one side to it. Another side is that I think they are also after a certain blood type and why they pick on certain families taking "all' of their kids (think its the RH Negative blood group which is not common, resistant to many diseases apparently). I won't post what happens to the kids forced into child care homes, its too graphic and too horrific and will make you feel sick. This is their sick perversions and all the while they are doing these 'practices', they are laughing at all of us as they rule us too!

Yet next election, we run along to the election box to vote them or another breed of the same in...

____________________Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

@jd wrote:I'm really sorry RF to read what you have personally been through. I can understand how angry you feel with the words SS. They are the gastapo, evil nasty who are stealing our children in secret courts, splitting up the family, sending parents to prison for the crime of 'speaking' and trying to protect their children, creating unhappy children. I bet you get a longer sentence for 'speaking' in trying to be with your child that the state has stolen from you, than being a celeb child rapist!!!!....This is anything but the welfare of children & familes, its the total opposite!

DO PEOPLE REALISE YET THE REAL COUNTRY WE LIVE IN...AND WHO OUR ELITE POWERS WE ELECT TO SERVE OUR INTERESTS REALLY ARE!!

WHAT COUNTRY IS THIS THAT THE ONES IN POWER "STEAL" YOUR KIDS...THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY TRANSPARENT FREE SOCIETY...THIS IS A TYRANNY

The financial gain is only one side to it. Another side is that I think they are also after a certain blood type and why they pick on certain families taking "all' of their kids (think its the RH Negative blood group which is not common, resistant to many diseases apparently). I won't post what happens to the kids forced into child care homes, its too graphic and too horrific and will make you feel sick. This is their sick perversions and all the while they are doing these 'practices', they are laughing at all of us as they rule us too!

Yet next election, we run along to the election box to vote them or another breed of the same in...

I am just glad you posted this, I think I posted a 'forcedabduction' link in another topic and had been toying with starting one like this. So thank you!

Yes, they ARE evil. Some may start with good intentions but get sucked in and HAVE to do as they are told. I still am certain the stress of seeing me brought so low contributed to my Dad leaving us too young.

This was back in the day and (you'll find this hard to believe) but I existed in a world where "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" - WRONG!Whatever you DO say to them CAN and WILL be twisted and used against you. These damned 'professionals' can't even spell, use grammar or attribute illnesses etc with the right child!!! Their 'reports' are a joke. You are asked to go to meetings as 'your views are important' (so important they don't listen). My Dad caught out one 'lady' at my house - she was sat, he was stood. She asked me a question, I replied, she scribbled. All of a sudden my Dad said "I think. You should change that - she didn't say that did she? No - didn't realise I could read upside down eh?" Cue me looking up to see a v red faced SW who hurriedly left. She'd written that the children 'fight uncontrollably' when I had answered 'they play like most brothers do'!!!

The worst bit is they lie! They INSIST they have to enter your home if they cold call - they DON'T. Even the Police can only enter your home without a warrant if they believe a crime is being committed!

Oh I know all the laws now, believe me. While they insist on attacking soft targets (ie single mums - my 5ad used to say "if a hulking bloke answered your door they'd soon think twice about harassing you"), Baby P's will continue to happen.They are just too spineless to go for such people (plus the children aren't 'good' adoption material.

Read this and weep (still makes me cry) - these people are known to me - (not well, better by a friend)

Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

What is clearly shown is SS are "looking" for you to say something that they can twist it in order to STEAL your child away. Their only motive being there is how to steel your child, not a single care in the world about the childs well being and needs....My mind has gone numb

The story of the Websters is just......Can't find words at the moment

They said in court that the children have been in their adoptive home for three years now and it would be emotionally harmful for them to go back to us. ‘But our daughter was with us for four years before she was taken stolen. She’s spent more of her life with us than the adoptive parents.’

Think I need a few minutes

____________________Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

What is clearly shown is SS are "looking" for you to say something that they can twist it in order to STEAL your child away. Their only motive being there is how to steel your child, not a single care in the world about the childs well being and needs....My mind has gone numb

The story of the Websters is just......Can't find words at the moment

They said in court that the children have been in their adoptive home for three years now and it would be emotionally harmful for them to go back to us. ‘But our daughter was with us for four years before she was taken stolen. She’s spent more of her life with us than the adoptive parents.’

Think I need a few minutes

Yep jd the story of the Websters says it all... the children can be ripped from their biological parents but not the adoptive ones even though they spent longer with the Websters.'They' will also lie to children, saying eg"Mummy and Daddy don't want you so we'll find you a lovely forever Mummy and Daddy" - makes my blood boil

Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

I have difficulties to stomach these horrible stories, even though I have, unfortunately, witnessed something similar nearby. My thoughts are with you, rainbow-fairy et al, who've suffered from these atrocious practices.

Châtelaine wrote:I have difficulties to stomach these horrible stories, even though I have, unfortunately, witnessed something similar nearby. My thoughts are with you, rainbow-fairy et al, who've suffered from these atrocious practices.

Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

No government of a decent humane country would ever allow this to happen...let alone be the perpetrators!!!

This country has no respect for Human Rights...the state government STEALING its citizens children, trying to secretly poison from every angle, is on a par as what Hitler would have done

To quote from the article:

The professionals on whose opinion these children were taken, the lawyers who failed to seek the correct expert witnesses and the social workers who refused to consider any option but non-accidental injury and suppressed alternative opinion, are all protected by the cloak of anonymity. Their questionable judgment cannot, in effect, be questioned.....Free democracy country & model of human rights?

I too know via a friend of families going though this absolute hell. This is real. Families are silenced via the secret family courts and face prison if they even try to stand up against this child stealing government with this horrific crime they are committing. There must be thousands & thousands of families broken up and their kids stolen by the State for no real reason other than the State wanted them. What the heck is this country. There was that story the other week of the father who posted Happy Birthday on his sons FB page (the son who "wants' his father in his life) and now the father faces prison because of it, forcing the father & son apart even though they want each other in their lives...I mean, this is not ludicrous, this is just plain inhumane and along the lines of barbarism

So called "experts" (what an over used & unmeaningful word this is, like 'bespoke") earn anything between £250,000 to £400,000 for merely writing a pre-saved report template without even meeting the child, or parents, nor in the slightest bit interested in the facts of the case, just breaking the family up and earning a fortune in the process. This is not a computer game, these are peoples lives and families. The parents unable to defend themselves in secret courts that the public must never know about. Its all secret secret secret, Bilderberg secret...why do you think its all secret? If it was honest then it would be transparent and in the open....and why do people keep things secret, because it is bad

Everything possible should be made for families to be together. In the UK the real hard truth is that it is the total opposite, they are making up scandalous lies with one intention of stealing kids away from their parents. Anyone with a sense of humanity should really be questioning this

As Brian Gerrish says on the video, if we are to protect our children we are going to have to look at some very dark subjects & realise the UK is not the country we think it is

____________________Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

@jd wrote:No government of a decent humane country would ever allow this to happen...let alone be the perpetrators!!!

This country has no respect for Human Rights...the state government STEALING its citizens children, trying to secretly poison from every angle, is on a par as what Hitler would have done

To quote from the article:

The professionals on whose opinion these children were taken, the lawyers who failed to seek the correct expert witnesses and the social workers who refused to consider any option but non-accidental injury and suppressed alternative opinion, are all protected by the cloak of anonymity. Their questionable judgment cannot, in effect, be questioned.....Free democracy country & model of human rights?

I too know via a friend of families going though this absolute hell. This is real. Families are silenced via the secret family courts and face prison if they even try to stand up against this child stealing government with this horrific crime they are committing. There must be thousands & thousands of families broken up and their kids stolen by the State for no real reason other than the State wanted them. What the heck is this country. There was that story the other week of the father who posted Happy Birthday on his sons FB page (the son who "wants' his father in his life) and now the father faces prison because of it, forcing the father & son apart even though they want each other in their lives...I mean, this is not ludicrous, this is just plain inhumane and along the lines of barbarism

So called "experts" (what an over used & unmeaningful word this is, like 'bespoke") earn anything between £250,000 to £400,000 for merely writing a pre-saved report template without even meeting the child, or parents, nor in the slightest bit interested in the facts of the case, just breaking the family up and earning a fortune in the process. This is not a computer game, these are peoples lives and families. The parents unable to defend themselves in secret courts that the public must never know about. Its all secret secret secret, Bilderberg secret...why do you think its all secret? If it was honest then it would be transparent and in the open....and why do people keep things secret, because it is bad

Everything possible should be made for families to be together. In the UK the real hard truth is that it is the total opposite, they are making up scandalous lies with one intention of stealing kids away from their parents. Anyone with a sense of humanity should really be questioning this

As Brian Gerrish says on the video, if we are to protect our children we are going to have to look at some very dark subjects & realise the UK is not the country we think it is

People TOTALLY need to realise this jd!I am not going to lie. I am crying as I write this, ok it was 10 years ago but it may as well have been yesterday. My Mum and myself walked into a CP 'meeting' (outcome pre-decided of course). She was not allowed to speak, just be my 'support'. I had an A4 document wallet full of testimonial letters stating what a good, devoted Mum I was, we were told it was 'irrelevant'. A big table with 14 'professionals', and I kid you not of those only 2 had met me, ONE had met my children. The black humour was the only good point - my Mum and I shared with a look - when an NSPCC rep stated 'You clearly resent your youngest son and favour your elder' - well, I'd often been accused of giving the then-youngest too much attention (he needed it, being ASD). Just proved how 'well' they knew me and my children!As the first 'professional' said 'CP', so did the 2nd, then the 3rd... The report was totally (intentionally) flawed. I was then harassed for two years until we got the ASD diagnosis. Its ironic as the NSPCC man, he of the sweeping statement who'd NEVER met me or my children becane one of my biggest advocates, as I was 'asked' to attend parenting classes - he actually wrote in a report that he had NO idea why I'd been sent, I was a natural mother!

Final nail before diagnosis was the private nursery the Nazi's paid for him to go to to 'prove' his behaviour was caused by neglect. The nursery also said (and helped me get the diagnosis) they thought he was ASD, and because they weren't Council, ie, beholden to Government, would vote against SS and say my children were happy, healthy and well looked after. The Nazi's did NOT like that!

PEOPLE MUST WAKE THE HELL UP! If it happened to me, ANYONE ON THIS FORUM who is a PARENT or GRANDPARENT could be NEXT!

It is a national disgrace. I was lucky compared to some (ie the Websters) but even so the whole wider family had 2 years of hell. Fall out with a neighbour, teacher, maybe your child has a scratch and they decide to anonymously (ie cowardly) call the SS then NOTHING will stop the cogs from starting. I was lucky. Not all (most in fact aren't).

Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

Just to add jd I hope the families your friend knows get on ok. I'm pretty clued up now as you can imagine and can offer limited advice, but Ian Josephs (from the Forced Adoption site) is fantastic, John Hemming good too

Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

Eddie and Keela alerted to items and places concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other items or places.

According to Eddie and Keela, the body of Madeleine McCann lay lifeless behind the sofa in Apartment 5a, clinging to the only thing from which she could derive any comfort; a soft toy called 'Cuddle cat'.

Kate's book 'madeleine', Page 219: "Did they really believe that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later from a body that had been so swiftly removed?"

After forensic analysis of the 'Last Photo' there is little doubt now that the pool photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken on the Thursday 3rd May, but most likely on the Sunday 29th April. So, where was Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday?

John McCann:"This was terrible for them, Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: "Maddy's jammies, where is Maddy?"Martin Roberts:"If Madeleine's pyjamas had not, in fact, been abducted then neither had Madeleine McCann."Dr Martin Roberts: A Nightwear Job

Death Toll in McCann Case

Gerry McCann called for an example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014 after a 'Dossier' was handed in to Police by McCann supporters. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room the next day. Brenda paid the price.

Colin Shalke died suddenly in mysterious circumstances with a significant amount of morphine in his system. At the Inquest the coroner said there was no evidence as to how he had come to take morphine, and no needle mark was found.

Ex-Met DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC1's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window' of opportunity' from 3 mins to 45 mins, in accordance with their remit, to allow the staged abduction to happen.

Dr Gonçalo Amaral, retired PJ Coordinator: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened, they don't need to investigate anything. When MI5 opens their files, then we will know the truth."

Tracey Kandohla: "A McCann pal told The Sun Online: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house or building equipment."

The McCanns, Operation Grange and the BBC are all working towards one goal - to make us keep looking at what happened (or didn't happen) on 3rd May, instead of looking at what happened days earlier. There is NO evidence of an abduction. Smithman is ALL they have got. Without that, they are sunk. No wonder Operation Grange clings on to Smithman...